MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402838730 · doi:10.1080/24732850.2024.2399616

The Influence of “Body Language” on the Assessment of Witness Credibility in Australian Written Court Judgments

2024· article· en· W4402838730 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Denault, Danielle Bozin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityWitnessPsychologyLinguisticsLawSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how “body language” has been used in Australian court judgments when assessing witness credibility, and how it can influence legal proceedings. We first address the use (and misuse) of nonverbal communication. Then, we address the guidelines of the High Court of Australia regarding nonverbal behavior, also known as demeanor within the legal community. The methodology of the doctrinal analysis we conducted and the results are presented. Their implications considering research on nonverbal communication are discussed, and we conclude with a call for legal scholars and practitioners to further address the influence of “body language” in legal proceedings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic Psychology Research and PracticeSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207